News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains why Blue Origin’s Starship lawsuit makes no sense
For the first time since SpaceX competitor Blue Origin took NASA to federal court after losing a Moon lander contract to Starship and a protest over that loss, unsealed documents have finally revealed the argument Jeff Bezos’ space startup is focusing on in court.
After the details broke in new court documents filed on Wednesday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk weighed in on Twitter to offer his take on why the arguments Blue Origin has hinged its lawsuit on make very little sense.
While one seemingly significant portion of the main complaint claiming to reveal “additional substantial errors” in SpaceX’s Starship HLS proposal was almost fully redacted, most of the opening argument is legible. In short, Blue Origin appears to have abandoned the vast majority of arguments it threw about prior to suing NASA and the US government and is now almost exclusively hinging its case on the claim that SpaceX violated NASA’s procurement process by failing to account for a specific kind of prelaunch review before every HLS-related Starship launch.
For NASA’s HLS competition, SpaceX proposed to create a custom variant of Starship capable of serving as a single-stage-to-orbit crewed Moon lander with the help of the rest of the Starship fleet – including Super Heavy boosters, cargo/tanker Starships, and a depot or storage ship. SpaceX would begin a Moon landing campaign by launching a (likely heavily modified) depot Starship into a stable Earth orbit. Anywhere from 8 to 14 Starship tanker missions – each carrying around 100-150 tons of propellant – would then gradually fill that depot ship over the course of no more than six or so months. Once filled, an HLS lander would launch to orbit, refill its tanks from the depot ship, and make its way to an eccentric lunar orbit to rendezvous with NASA’s Orion spacecraft and three Artemis astronauts.
As Blue Origin has exhaustively reminded anyone within earshot for the last five months, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander proposal is extremely complex and NASA is taking an undeniable risk (of delays, not for astronauts) by choosing SpaceX. Nevertheless, NASA’s Kathy Lueders and a source evaluation panel made it abundantly clear in public selection statement that SpaceX’s proposal was by far the most competent, offering far a far superior management approach and technical risk no worse than Blue Origin’s far smaller, drastically less capable lander.
The bulk of Blue Origin’s argument appears to be that its National Team Lander proposal was drastically disadvantaged by the fact that SpaceX may or may not have incorrectly planned for just three ‘flight readiness reviews’ (FRRs) for each 16-launch HLS Starship mission. While heavily redacted, Blue Origin wants a judge to believe that contrary to the US Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) fair assessment that such a small issue is incredibly unlikely to have changed the competition’s outcome, it would have “been able to propose a substantially lower price” for its lander. To be clear, a flight readiness review is an admittedly important part of NASA’s safety culture, but it ultimately amounts to paperwork and doublechecks over the course of a day or two of meetings.
All else equal, the need to complete an FRR before a launch is incredibly unlikely to cause more than a few days of delays in a worst-case scenario and would have next to no cost impact. There is no reasonable way to argue that being allowed to complete some launches without an FRR would have singlehandedly allowed Blue Origin to “[engineer] and [propose] an entirely different architecture.” Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the company attempts to argue – that it would have radically and completely changed the design it spent more than half a billion dollars sketching out if it had only been able to skip a few reviews.
Curiously, Blue Origin nevertheless does make a few coherent and seemingly fact-based arguments in the document. Perhaps most notably, it claims that when NASA ultimately concluded that it didn’t have funds for even a single award (a known fact) and asked SpaceX – its first choice – to make slight contract modifications to make the financial side of things work, NASA consciously chose to waive the need for an FRR before every HLS Starship launch. Only via purported cost savings from those waived reviews, Blue Origin claims, was NASA able to afford SpaceX’s proposal – which, it’s worth noting, was more than twice as cheap as the next cheapest option (Blue Origin).
Ultimately, it thus appears that Blue Origin may have a case to make that NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Option A contract despite a handful of errors that violated contracting rules and the HLS solicitation. Relative to just about any other possible issue, though, it’s hard not to perceive the problems Blue Origin may or may have correctly pointed out as anything more than marginal and extraordinarily unlikely to have changed the outcome in Blue’s favor had they been rectified before the award. Most importantly, even if Blue Origin’s argument is somehow received favorably and a judge orders NASA to overturn its SpaceX HLS award and reconsider all three proposals, it’s virtually inconceivable that even that best-case outcome would result in Blue Origin receiving a contract of any kind.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk doubles down on Tesla Cybercab timeline once again
“Cybercab, which has no pedals or steering wheel, starts production in April,” Musk said.
CEO Elon Musk doubled down once again on the timeline of production for the Tesla Cybercab, marking yet another example of the confidence he has in the company’s ability to meet the aggressive timeline for the vehicle.
It is the third time in the past six months that Musk has explicitly stated Cybercab will enter production in April 2026.
On Monday morning, Musk reiterated that Cybercab will enter its initial manufacturing phase in April, and that it would not have any pedals or a steering wheel, two things that have been speculated as potential elements of the vehicle, if needed.
Cybercab, which has no pedals or steering wheel, starts production in April https://t.co/yShxZ2HJqp
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 16, 2026
Musk has been known to be aggressive with timelines, and some products have been teased for years and years before they finally come to fruition.
One of perhaps the biggest complaints about Musk is the fact that Tesla does not normally reach the deadlines that are set: the Roadster, Semi, and Unsupervised Full Self-Driving suite are a few of those that have been given “end of this year” timelines, but have not been fulfilled.
Nevertheless, many are able to look past this as part of the process. New technology takes time to develop, but we’d rather not hear about when, and just the progress itself.
However, the Cybercab is a bit different. Musk has said three times in the past six months that Cybercab will be built in April, and this is something that is sort of out of the ordinary for him.
In December 2025, he said that Tesla was “testing the production system” of the vehicle and that “real production ramp starts in April.
Elon Musk shares incredible detail about Tesla Cybercab efficiency
On January 23, he said that “Cybercab production starts in April.” He did the same on February 16, marking yet another occasion that Musk has his sights set on April for initial production of the vehicle.
Musk has also tempered expectations for the Cybercab’s initial production phase. In January, he noted that Cybercab would be subjected to the S-curve-type production speed:
“…initial production is always very slow and follows an S-curve. The speed of production ramp is inversely proportionate to how many new parts and steps there are. For Cybercab and Optimus, almost everything is new, so the early production rate will be agonizingly slow, but eventually end up being insanely fast.”
Cybercab will be a huge part of Tesla’s autonomous ride-sharing plans moving forward.
Elon Musk
Tesla owners explore potential FSD pricing options as uncertainty looms
We asked Tesla owners what the company should price Full Self-Driving moving forward, as now it’s going to be subscription-based. There were some interesting proposals.
Tesla is starting the process of removing the ability to purchase the Full Self-Driving suite outright, as it pulled the purchase option in the United States over the weekend.
However, there has been some indication by CEO Elon Musk that the price of the subscription will increase as the suite becomes more robust. But Tesla finds itself in an interesting situation with this: the take rate for Full Self-Driving at $99 per month is about 12 percent, and Musk needs a significant increase in this rate to reach a tranche in his new compensation package.
This leaves Tesla and owners in their own respective limbos: Tesla needs to find a price that will incentivize consumers to use FSD, while owners need Tesla to offer something that is attractive price-wise.
We asked Tesla owners what the company should price Full Self-Driving moving forward, as now it’s going to be subscription-based. There were some interesting proposals.
Price Reduction
Although people are willing to pay the $99 per month for the FSD suite, it certainly is too high for some owners. Many suggested that if Tesla would back down the price to $49, or somewhere around that region, many owners would immediately subscribe.
Others suggested $69, which would make a lot of sense considering Musk’s obsession with that number.
Different Pricing for Supervised and Unsupervised
With the release of the Unsupervised version of Full Self-Driving, Tesla has a unique opportunity to offer pricing for different attention level requirements.
$50/mo for supervised.
$300/mo for unsupervised including insurance.— pɦoɿɟ pᴉʌɒp (@CSUDavid) February 15, 2026
Unsupervised Full Self-Driving would be significantly more expensive, but not needed by everyone. Many people indicate they would still like to drive their cars manually from time to time, but others said they’d just simply be more than okay with only having Supervised FSD available in their cars.
Time-Based Pricing
Tesla could price FSD on a duration-based pricing model, including Daily, Weekly, Monthly, and Annual rates, which would incentivize longer durations with better pricing.
Annually, the rate could be $999 per year, while Monthly would stay at $99. However, a Daily pass of FSD would cost somewhere around $10, while a $30 per week cost seems to be ideal.
These all seem to be in line with what consumers might want. However, Tesla’s attitude with FSD is that it is the future of transportation, and with it offering only a Monthly option currently, it does not seem as if it will look as short-term as a Daily pass.
Tiered Pricing
This is perhaps the most popular option, according to what we’ve seen in comments and replies.
This would be a way to allow owners to pick and choose which FSD features they would like most and pay for them. The more features available to you, the more it costs.
For example, if someone only wanted Supervised driving and Autopark, it could be priced at $50 per month. Add in Summon, it could be $75.
This would allow people to pick only the features they would use daily.
Tesla has left a single loophole to purchase Full Self-Driving outright. On Sunday, the option officially disappeared from the Online Design Studio in the United States, as Tesla transitioned to a Subscription-only purchasing plan for the FSD suite.
However, there is still one way to get the Full Self-Driving suite in an outright manner, which would not require the vehicle owner to pay monthly for the driver assistance program — but you have to buy a Model S or Model X.
Months ago, Tesla launched a special “Luxe Package” for the Model S and Model X, which included Full Self-Driving for the life of the vehicle, as well as free Supercharging at over 75,000 locations, as well as free Premium Connectivity, and a Four-Year Premium Service package, which includes wheel and tire protection, windshiel protection, and recommended maintenance.
🚨 Tesla increased the price of both the Model S and Model X by $10,000, but both vehicles now include the “Luxe Package,” which includes:
-Full Self-Driving
-Four years of included maintenance, tire and wheel repairs, and windshield repairs/replacements
-Free lifetime… pic.twitter.com/LKv7rXruml— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 16, 2025
It would also be available through the purchase of a Cyberbeast, the top trim of the Cybertruck lineup.
This small loophole would allow owners to avoid the monthly payment, but there have been some changes in the fine print of the program, as Tesla has added that it will not be transferable to subsequent vehicle owners or to another vehicle.
This goes for the FSD and the Supercharging offers that come with the Luxe Package.
For now, Tesla still has the Full Self-Driving subscription priced at $99 per month. However, that price is expected to increase over the course of some time, especially as its capabilities improve. Tesla seems to be nearing Unsupervised FSD based on Musk’s estimates for the Cybercab program.
There is the potential that Tesla offers both Unsupervised and Supervised FSD for varying prices, but this is not confirmed.
In other countries, Tesla has pushed back the deadline to purchase the suite outright, as in Australia, it has been adjusted to March 31.
Elon Musk doubles down on Tesla Cybercab timeline once again
Tesla owners explore potential FSD pricing options as uncertainty looms
